On 10.03.19 02:40, andy pugh wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 17:55, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> wrote: > > > Electricity could with the right push, be solar.
It is increasingly so in Australia, Gene. The nascent multi-billion push to build pumped hydro storage, a decade earlier than thought likely, is because the network becomes unstable if we hit 50% renewable without it. And that scenario is coming down the highway at speed, with every man and his dog whacking panels on the roof and feeding into the grid despite derisory feed-in tariffs. (Who needs fair payment for the energy, we'll just drive the coal burners bankrupt, knocking out the oldest most uneconomic power stations, one at the time.) > I would rather it was fusion. But with solar we have fusion power with a useful safety moat around the reactor, and no greedy rip-off merchants gouging consumers, Andy. OK, our planet's rotation interrupts supply to most locations daily, but that's merely a motivator for better storage solutions. That many durable battery technologies are only 80% efficient is no big deal when the energy has zero generation cost, the PV panels are now dirt cheap, and most Aussie homes have ample roof area. With just 7 kW of panels, and 10 kWh of batteries, the build I've started will be 100% solar powered, except after several overcast days in the depths of winter, when the generator will be fired up as it now is every night. Bang in another 10 kWh of batteries, and the generator will rust from disuse. The wallspace used for that is minimal, and the tech is pleasingly decorative. The UK is perhaps small enough that distribution from a central generating monster is reasonably efficient, but Australia has the population of one major world city spread over 7.7 million square kilometers. Distribution from one trillion dollar behemoth is problematic, and PV plus wind are immeasurably cheaper and available now. They also create regionally distributed jobs in installation, maintenance, and eventually recycling of benign materials. (From sand unto sand?) > it looks like we can get by at the current level with renewables. One > day a couple of years ago the UK was > 50% renewable. (low load sunny > and windy day) We have some failry big offshore wind farms: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Array Taking energy out of winds seems a good idea as wave energy is increasing by 0.4% annually. Europe does well there. Denmark is occasionally > 100% renewable, exporting the excess. Here in Australia we have to build our own storage to gap fill with excess. That will take time, but the will and determination to achieve it before we hand over to the next generation is growing. > But "current level" won't solve anything. With 10x the current output > we could solve problems. With 100x we could stop mining and reprocess > our land-fill sites into raw elements for re-use. Just one unused corner of Australia could power the world from PV, given storage and transmission lines, according to reports, so the country can have 100x the power now if desired. We could be making the concrete replacing Biorock by dunking metal mesh in the sea and "plating" slabs of magnesium hydroxide etc. onto it. With accretion rates averaging 0.4 to 1.5 kg per kWh, it's easy to produce tons per hr of reinforced "concrete" slabs per site without emitting any CO2. With compressive strength ranging from 26 to 37 MPa, it is stronger than concrete. Solar farms on the coast would remove the need for massively expensive power transmission. > I don't know why nobody is pushing for war-level funding for Fusion. The world is bankrupt, particularly USA and Japan, having funded the last decade's growth by borrowing the next decade's bread and butter money. Either our children have to pay it back, or banks have to write off the trillions which were not real when they were loaned out. Cheap distributed PV, available now, and democratised serves the community far far better than a trillion dollar theoretical potentiality which will just enrich a corporation and corrupt politicians to protect its monopoly, after taxpayers have gone without for generations to pay trillions for kilometer-wide glow-in-the-dark whirlygigs under Switzerland. (What is the cost of the next one, now on the drawing board?) Socialising the risk and losses while privatising the profits is the name of the fusion game too. If there's any doubt about the corrupting effect of corporate monopolies, look at how coal and cement collude to worsen global warming for their short term profit: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-10/coal-ash-has-become-one-of-australias-biggest-waste-problems/10886866 > It can work, the sun proves that. It's just a bit difficult to build another one of those. (You can't get the wood, you know. ;-) Erik _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
